The Free Enterprise System vs. Capitalism

It’s a common mistake in the media to equate Capitalism with the Free Enterprise System, implying they are one and the same. But it’s a fallacy promulgated by those who control capital as it serves their agenda; it provides the sheep’s clothing for blending into society making it more acceptable. In simple terms capitalism is about the bottom line of making a profit, it makes no difference if it makes a profit building prisons or schools.

Capitalism is nothing more than a capital accumulation scheme, and more often then not it acts as a cancer on the Free Enterprise System and the values that it nurtures.   Capitalism, particularly the cartel Capitalism that presently exists, seeks to mitigate, or even eliminate the values that sustains and nurtures the free enterprise system, as those values do not contribute to the bottom line of making a profit. 

Capitalism is myopic, focusing on the bottom line of making a profit; it makes no difference if it makes a profit on manufactured needs or on real needs.  It is indifferent to the needs essential to our individual wellbeing and the wellbeing of the global environment which sustains us; yet, it is our wellbeing that is at the heart of our pursuit of happiness.

Capitalism, as it is presently practiced, is not sustainable, not just due to the pyramid scheme nature of the practice, but also environmentally as it externalizes many of its cost to the environment and to society at large in order to achieve its short term profits. Capital seeks “efficiencies” and will externalize processes that pollute the environment, while it also reduces the cost of labor either through improvements in technology, or by outsourcing. 

Capital is hailed as a great savior, but capital has no conscience; cartel capitalism capitalizes on our fears, doubts, desires and superstitions.  Capital will chase capital and will continue to increase wealth even as the economy as a whole stagnates, pooling in ever larger reservoirs.

The holders of these vast pools of capital, in symbiosis with government, provides the power to promote capital’s own vested interests; whether it is in banking, real estate, military procurement, “national security”, medicine, oil, transportation or high tech, you name it.  Indeed this power and authority to control is furnished by government through a plethora of means such as limiting their liability by law, providing subsidies, guaranties, bailouts, government contracts, loans, price controls and on and on. 

For Capitalism to flourish with its corporate structure requires the authority to control, with a perverse allegiance and vigilance to its bidding.  Those who control capital control the Capitols of the world; money interest skews the political process.  It’s no longer a democracy of one-person one vote; the almighty dollar is the measure of the vote. When capitalism is given full reign, we no longer have a government of, by and for the people; democracy is allowed to languish and by default the holders of capital become the masters! 

Capitalism is equally at home in a fascist system or in a totalitarian regime, as in so called democratic republics, as governments, in all cases, protect and defend it from the people.  This assertion is echoed in a recent article by foreignpolicy.com, “In China, Russia, and the sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf, state-led brands of capitalism are holding their own.”   Indeed the power and authority for capital to control the economy is furnished by governments through a plethora of means such as limiting liability by law, providing subsidies, guaranties, bailouts, government contracts, loans, price controls and on and on. 

In contrast to “Capitalism”, the free enterprise system is about finding needs and filling them; fulfilling useful and beneficial needs of society; profit is only one of the myriad rewards or values accrued towards this end.  The perceived inefficiencies in the Free Enterprise System support the human needs and values of the community; it is less efficient than capitalism as profits are often forsaken to fulfill these other values. 

Among the countless values that motivate people to engage in “free enterprise” activities is self-direction, independence, a sense of accomplishment, the freedom to work for oneself, an economic activity which employs the whole family, as well as a desire to simply serve the community; to provide for community needs and to accomplish this in a sustainable manner.  For entrepreneurs engaged in free enterprises ventures, profits are often sacrificed to meet these diverse values and ends.  The Free Enterprise System at its core is about self actualizing, expressing oneself, being fulfilled while at the same time fulfilling the needs of others.

The Free Enterprise System, when it’s vigorous and vital, is the bulwark of a vibrant democratic meritocracy; it provides the structure of freedom where the actions of a free people can flourish.  When capital concentrates in the hands of the few, democracy suffers; it misappropriates the invisible hand of the Free Enterprise System and converts it into slight of hand of politics and government.  Free markets do not breed a free people, free enterprise does! The present “free market” is about promoting corporate interest around the world to manipulate resources.  Free enterprise represents individual efforts to solve problems; find a need and fill it!

The free enterprise system is the invisible hand expressed by Adam Smith, although he expressed it as a free market of a multitude of small producers primarily producing for their local communities.  Capital with its seductive power distorts this concept of “free markets” to mean the freedom of capital to go wherever it wishes to be directed and have power over the market. 

This is accomplished by multi-national corporations that have allegiance only to the holders of capital with no allegiance to any sovereign state, whether expressed as being communist or capitalist.  It is simply greed that motivates the holders of capital, not the self interest of the myriad members of society as they interact in personal commercial pursuits.

Instead of citizens participating in a democracy enhanced by the Free Enterprise System, we have been reduced to consumers and laborers in a capital driven scheme that dominates and subjugates the market.  Until we reinvigorate the Free Enterprise System and democratize capital, we the citizens will continue to be at the mercy of capital’s interest.   Changing the metrics of capitalism is the challenge ahead; it must evolve into a new form that is equitable and inclusive and provides value to all of society, only then will democracy have a chance to flourish.  

Bureaucratic Discretion Rules

When society perceives a problem that seeks a solution, it’s a knee jerk reaction to expect government to provide the answer.  But, the same conditions necessary for government agencies to be proactive in solving problems, also insulates them from actually fulfilling their duties and worst of all allows them to set and then carry out their own agendas.  

Government requires a burgeoning superstructure of agencies populated with officials to function; these officials on all levels of government demand a great deal of discretion to carry out their duties.  Bureaucratic discretion has expanded exponentially as a consequence of the growing complexity of the duties government is being asked to perform.  

Prior to 1935 the courts held to a non-delegation theory when it came to government agencies creating policy.  This theory was based on Article I of the Constitution which provides "all legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States;" therefore, allowing agencies the power to create policy was seen as a delegation of the power to legislate.  After the New Deal, the courts relaxed their restrictions on legislators, allowing them to delegate powers to make national policy to non-elected bodies such as administrative agencies.  This has opened the floodgates to an escalation of discretion, which has percolated down to the states and local jurisdictions. Government officials, federal, state and local have in essence become ad hoc legislators as they create the regulations that allow them to wield their ever expanding discretion.

Under these conditions of burgeoning discretion, public officials are inclined to use their discretion as a prerogative in resolving competing political claims, often at the expense of applying the best solution to the problem.  A political system which gives power and immunity to a handful of the people is corruptible and I believe already corrupted.  Public officials are not hesitant to exercise broad discretionary power, because the reviewing courts tend to routinely defer to agencies expertise. This highlights the problem faced by the individual public official who may be pulled politically in more than one direction, personal political loyalties often sway government officials, influencing and sometimes dictating their decisions.  

…in the course of a long life my opinion of government has steadily worsened:

the more intelligently they try to act (as distinguished from simply following an

established rule), the more harm they seem to do – because once they are known

to aim at particular goals (rather than merely maintaining a self-correcting order)

the less they can avoid serving sectional interest.”  - F.A. Hayek

The government’s discretion continues to expand as legislators persist in passing loosely or vaguely stated laws couched in complicated language, leaving government agencies the power to fill in the details; fundamentally giving the administrative agencies the opportunity define their own level of discretion.  This discretion has become so broad that in many cases the government can virtually operate by fiat; they can treat two people in similar circumstances in completely opposite ways.  Even if we could make laws that were clear and unambiguous, we cannot make individuals who exercise them without bias.  The way one interprets law is always affected by one's self determined moral and political beliefs.  Besides their broad discretion, these bureaucratic rulers-of-the-laws enjoy a remnant of sovereign immunity that protects “public” officials from legal tort action when operating within their area of discretion; this immunity is maintained “whether or not the discretion involved is abused.”

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRs/NRS-041.html

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Federal+Tort+Claims+Act

Many government officials increasingly see this discretion as a prerogative or a right. A startling example of this abuse of discretion by a government official occurred on the national stage when Katherine Harris, the Secretary of State in Florida, called an end to the vote count.  It is my contention that the secretary of state abused her discretion by calling off the vote; the result of this decision ultimately handed George W. Bush the keys to the White House. 

The Secretary of State claimed the discretion entrusted to her made it her “prerogative” to end the vote count, by this she meant it was her right to make any decision she wished.  But in fact, it was the Secretary of States duty to ensure that the voting process was fair and impartial, therefore, her duty as the Secretary of State required Katherine Harris use her discretion to extend the deadline and to make a reasonable attempt to get a fair count.  It would be difficult to argue Katherine Harris, as a Bush appointee and operative, was not motivated by a political agenda when she called off the vote; as such this was an abuse of discretion, a transgression against democracy and the American people. 

This growth of discretion, together with its abuse, is the greatest threat to our personal freedom and welfare.  The American Revolution was conducted to put an end to the monarchs arbitrary edicts and fiats, to create a “government of laws”, but we have arrived at a situation were an entrenched bureaucracy with its expanding discretion now has the power to dictate the political agenda and by extension the public agenda.  

The claim that “we are governed by the rule of law” masks the fact that laws are administered by individuals that come to the table with their own agendas.  With their broad operation of discretion, government officials are increasingly able to use their positions of power to determine the winners and the losers.   In short, the laws are continually being skewed in actual application towards meeting the agenda of those entrusted to administer it, rather than to the will of the people.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
— Thomas Jefferson

Copyright © 2010 - 2011

The Declaration of an Independent

There is a renewed revolution for independence now underway in this country, as evidenced by the growing number of citizens declaring their political independence.   This modern movement for independence represents the fastest growing segment of the political environment. The number of citizens now declaring their independence has outstripped those who identify themselves as either Democrats or Republicans.

The original revolution for independence in America was about removing sovereignty from the king and returning it to the people. I see the independence resurgence now underway as a personal revolution of the first order, a proto-revolution if you will, emanating from individuals reasserting personal sovereignty. The present independence movement represents a forward effort toward transferring sovereignty back to the people one person at a time.

Independent voters have been characterized as moderates or centrist, but I’d venture to say that self described independents are a separate breed altogether.  As an independent myself, my liberal positions are very much liberal and my conservative positions are generally very conservative.  If I have a “middle” position on any issue it is not reached by compromise, it is arrived at by careful deliberation after seeking the facts.  From my prospective, independents seek to understand the issues concerning society with the intention of finding solutions which do not necessarily meet political agendas.

Independent voters are persistently marginalized by the two-party system. Independent’s have been dismissed as being Democrats and Republicans in disguise, it is alleged that most Independents lean toward one of the two parties and therefore resemble either a Democrat or a Republican. I declare that party affiliation by Independents is simply a function of political survival; it’s a symptom of the stranglehold the two-party system has on our democracy, and is not one of clear choice (It’s a Hobson’s choice). When an individual declares their independence, they should be taken at their word and not be summarily dismissed.

Independents have been relegated to the political nether land of centrist by the two-party system. This linear conception of politics, as shown in Figure 1, does not provide a sufficient description of the dynamic socio-political process which gives rise to this renewed independence revolution 

Figure 1

A diagram of this dynamic demonstrates that the “center” is not some arbitrary point between the “left” and the “right”, it lies at various points above and beyond the left/right political continuum depicted in Figure 2. 

Figure 2

As illustrated in Figure 2, independents fall within a vast region that lies at an acute angle to the left and the right; at its root it’s libertarian and at its extreme it’s anarchistic.  When the debate between the political left and political right narrows, the ranks of anarchist expands as a reasonable and necessary reaction as the graph in Figure 3 shows.

Figure 3

This revolution for political independence is long overdue; Thomas Jefferson opined that “Every generation needs a new revolution”.  I call on all independents to join together, not as a third party but as an un-party, a kind of citizen parliament without a platform, to reaffirm the declaration of independence and declare our independence from the two-party system.  It is time for this organic revolution of independents to band together to bring a change to government through grassroots election reform.  I further call upon those registered with the two major parties, along with the disenfranchised voters who have abandoned the election process altogether, to join in this independence movement and register as independents. 

The need to band together for grass roots election reform has been made more urgent with the Supreme Court’s five to four decision that extended the decision in Buckley v. Valeo, which confirmed the old adage that money talks, building on this earlier decision that declared that corporations (as super citizens) have the right to speak the loudest in the Citizens United decision. 

Despite the courts interpretation of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment which extended certain constitutional protections to corporations, a corporation is not endowed by it’s creator with inalienable rights, its personhood is a legal fiction created by law, so it is the law that should curb its political speech; if the court refuses to do it then the people must take action.  Indeed, as a body, we can formulate the principles for election reform and as a single force dictate what will be acceptable from the candidates we elect and make the taking of inordinately large contributions from whatever source a disincentive.  As a virtual parliament of independent voters, without a platform or candidates, it would be impossible to be controlled by PACs and special interest groups.  They say you can’t purge politics of money, I declare we can and we shall!

Copyright © 2010 – 2011

The "Rule of Law" Myth

“We are governed by the rule of law.” This is a mantra mindlessly repeated nearly every day by pundits and politicians alike. The notion that any government, anywhere in the real world, would, or could, actually operate by the “rule of law” is a myth.  All systems of laws are administered by men, therefore this nation and all nations are systems of laws and men; you cannot separate the two.  Indeed, what evolves over time is a malleable system of laws, prone to be whatever government officials deem to be useful according to their concept of the world at the time.

In practice, those entrusted with the laws are often influenced by agendas that reflect their own social/economic/political view of the world and this drives their actions. With the expanding demands we put on government comes burgeoning bureaucracies with expanding discretion, broadening the power of officials to set and carry out their own perceived agendas, right or wrong.  In short, government officials become the “rulers of law.”

The “rule of law” pretense is fostered by our legislators, who deliberately introduce legislation awash with ambiguity, often as a means of providing political cover.  As these loosely worded laws are implemented by various government agencies, they are expressed in statutes and government codes in ways that expands the agencies discretion providing them with the cover for interpreting the code and statutes in the broadest possible manner.

The agendas within various government agencies, as perceived by bureaucrats with their own biases, predictably impinge on the rights of citizens and the courts are called upon to adjudicate the dispute; in this process the courts create case law that stands as precedent. Inevitably, one state or federal court’s established precedent comes in conflict with precedents made by judges in other politically influenced jurisdictions, with cases ending up in the Supreme Court were the nine judges apply their own political twist; this contest often ends with the vote of a single person determining the rights of entire populations. The old adage about the importance of a single vote is no truer anywhere in the political landscape than on the Supreme Court and this epitomizes the notion of the tyranny of the majority.

If there were a true and genuine “rule of law”, the decisions in the Supreme Court would be unanimous; the law would clearly speak for itself, any lay citizen would understand and be able to interpret it. But decisions are not unanimous or even clear; they are inevitably agenda driven as judges are appointed who are identified as being from the left, right or center bringing their own personal political philosophies to the bench.

It’s not as if you can take questions addressed in a case, and enter them into a “rule of law” machine that shoots out an answer on the other end. Instead we have legal decisions that often seem arbitrary and that fit the agenda of the government at the time; the application of law by government is more about expedience than justice or fairness. In the final analysis government with its expanding discretion and sovereign immunity is able to “legitimately” produce any result it chooses, under the color of law, with near impunity. 

Copyright  

Hurricane Katrina and "Anarchy"

“New Orleans descends into anarchy” the headlines declared following hurricane Katrina, but they missed the real news.  The media focused on the looting, carjacking, shootings and rapes, and characterized this as anarchy, but what they were calling anarchy was actually opportunism and disorderliness.  The important news in New Orleans was not that it “descended into anarchy”, but that it “ascended” into anarchy. 

What do I mean by this?  Anarchy indeed broke out in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, but, by definition, it was the voluntary association of individuals and groups who mobilized to offer assistance to the victims of the storm that were acting in an anarchic fashion.  The term anarchism has been perverted over time, it does not mean chaos and disorder; anarchy is simply the absence of government, anarchy is not necessarily the absence of decorum or organization.  Anarchism points to an ad hoc system of self-government, whereby free individuals organize themselves in ways that best promote the fulfillment of their ideals and the satisfaction of their needs.  This is the ideal prophesized by Jefferson

The government proved to be incompetent in the disaster relief for the victims of hurricane Katrina.  There were too many competing agendas by the local and federal agencies causing a form of paralysis.  This competition was less between the agencies, as it was the agencies in opposition to the will and needs of the victims.  The hurricane, with the failure of the dams, provided an opportunity for the government to do some social engineering and zoning modifications, with an eye towards changing the face of greater New Orleans.  This apparent agenda particularly affected the poor and disenfranchised, with the African American community the principal population affected.

Stepping in to fill the void, sometimes in opposition to the bureaucratic agenda, were many individuals and groups that felt a personal and social obligation to lend assistance to those in distress.  While the government was failing in a big government way, successes by private individuals and groups abounded. Individual citizens, church groups, and a new band of grassroots relief organizations stepped in to take up the slack.  Often rebuffing local bureaucracy and refusing government aid, most of these independent groups relied instead on small donations of money and supplies, along with a whole army of committed volunteers in the communities they serve.  Most of the entities who mobilized to help after the Katrina disaster would not, for the most part, consider themselves “anarchist”; nonetheless an accurate definition of the word, which speaks about the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organizing society, puts them in this camp.

While some would surely intellectually accept that moniker, others would proudly proclaim their commitment to anarchism.  Common Ground and other organizations such as Emergency Communities, the People’s Hurricane Relief Fund, and Four Directions joined small church groups in the region to provide services where government and large aid organizations failed to meet the need. In this effort they would often ignored the authorities’ thoughtless pronouncements, finding ways to bring supplies through closed checkpoints, setting up in areas not approved by the government, breaking the rules when it made sense.  Joining in the effort to provide for the needs of the hurricane victims was a caravan of medics from the “Bay Area Radical Health Collective” as well as other activists that arrived in New Orleans to do their part, such as the Food Not Bombs groups that mobilized from all over the country to feed those displaced by Hurricane Katrina

Also on their own initiative, a multitude of celebrities stepped up to donate one million dollars each to help the Katrina effort, including The Rolling Stones, actor George Clooney, singer Celine Dion, actor Nicolas Cage, comedian Jerry Lewis, and Beyonce’s man rapper Jay-Z.   Then there was Shaquille O'Neal of the Miami Heat, with his wife Shaunie, who coordinated an effort to ship tractor-trailers full of relief supplies to Katrina's victims.  

Angelina Jolie upset at what she saw was not happening in New Orleans wrote to Congress and the White House asking for more disaster relief.  John Travolta, flew to Baton Rouge with his wife Kelly Preston, carrying food supplies and vaccines.  Singer Macy Gray visited a camp in Houston, Texas and handed out clothing and toiletries.  Oprah Winfrey abandoned her summer vacation to visit those affected by Hurricane Katrina.

There was also a legion of ordinary citizens like Gary Maclaughlin who bought a used school bus and filled it with diapers and other supplies and drove it to New Orleans, then picked up a number of evacuees from the airport and drove them to a rescue shelter in Louisiana.  

There was David Perez, chairman of Surge Global Energy, who decided to spend a quarter million dollars to charter a plane and purchase a planeload of relief supplies. Later, he evacuated 82 hurricane victims and flew them to San Diego where arrangements were being made to help them. Then a Fort Lauderdale attorney Herb Cohen assembled a team of four medical professionals from Orlando. The group traveled to Houston on a jet paid for by the Aero Toy Store to provide medical assistance to evacuees.

A legion of groups also spontaneously assembled in New Orleans’s to give aid, like the coworkers at Smith & Associates in Tampa, Florida, who collected $20,000 worth of supplies for Katrina's victims. They filled two trucks with diapers, baby food and formula.  A group of people from the small town of Union, South Carolina, drove to Atlanta to pick up five families left homeless by the hurricane, giving them a place to live, along with groceries and utilities for at least two months.  Employees of the Columbus, Georgia, Courtyard by Marriott pooled their room vouchers, which they earned as bonuses, to give an evacuated family a hotel room for about to weeks; other employees took up collections to buy shoes for the children of evacuees.

Church congregations helping hurricane victims are to numerous to mention, but here are a few. Two of the churches in Ashley County, Arkansas (Promise Land Missionary Baptist Church and Calvary Baptist Church) offered to house a total of 75 people.  St. Patrick's church in nearby Phoenix City, Alabama, served hurricane evacuees a Thanksgiving-style dinner for Labor Day. Several truckloads of tents, sleeping bags, bottles of drinking water, and five-gallon gas containers for Katrina's victims were sent to the Gulf Coast from the Latter Day Saints.

And, not to be left out was the nation's children, from preschoolers to teens, who found enterprising ways to raise funds for Katrina's victims.  Six-year-old Angelo Ward and his four siblings set up a lemonade stand in front of an supermarket and collected $735 in one weekend.  Ten-year-old Melissa McLean of Hollywood, Florida, raised more than $700 in two days selling lemonade at a street corner in her neighborhood. Six-year-old Thomas Caruso of Paramus, New Jersey, watched the news as a Katrina victim holding her baby cried for help. He decided to give the $200 he had saved for a new Nintendo game to the hurricane victims.  Ten pre-teens from Howard, Wisconsin, sold curbside Kool-Aid, freeze pops, and cookies and raised $60 for the Red Cross.

With the present disaster in Haiti, I revisited the media’s love affair with the term anarchy as a means of titillation in addressing that disaster.  The best the press could come up with were instances of sporadic violence and looting, which they were quick to call anarchy.   As for sporadic violence, I live in a city with a cop on just about every other corner and we experience sporadic violence regularly.

As for the so called looting, it was generally in the nature of salvaging abandoned property of owners who were either missing or dead, very little of the looting was of a criminal nature (this even with the prisons destroyed in the quake allowing three thousand inmates to escape).  The true anarchy in Haiti was exhibited by the grace and stoicism shown by the Haitian people, who, finding no immediate aid from the international community, used hammers and bare hands to rescue the trapped and to administer aid to the injured.

The Haitian people shared what little they had and bolstered each others spirits with song and dance; they coped with the situation the best they could in a country that was economically devastated before this natural disaster. 

Given the spontaneity and success of these grassroots mobilizations in both Katrina and now Haiti, I would say that anarchy is the natural state of society.  It is clear by now that government creates its own agenda over time and this agenda is often in conflict with society needs. At those times it is our obligation as members of society to step in and take back the reigns of sovereignty.  I predict that Katrina marks the beginning of a revolution of conscience that will continue to escalate as society deals with the failures of government. 

Copyright 2009 - 2011

Intelligent Design from an Inventor's POV

Here’s my take on the whole evolution vs. creationism debate.  Creationists insist that there is an “intelligent designer” behind all living things; by this they mean a supreme being that creates everything “whole cloth” almost instantly as a celestial inventor, this despite the growing evidence on the nature of evolution. 

Looking at the history of inventing, I can’t find a single invention that was created whole cloth from the mind of the inventor without reference to something that came before it.  There is an evolutionary process at work in the design of all practical artifacts produced by man throughout history. In each case, the most useful objects and processes available are drawn upon for inspiration in the development of the most functional new version of an idea.   

This seems to be how nature works as well, creation is an evolutionary progression.  This does not rule out some underlying or innate intelligence at work in the process.  An innate intelligence does not portent a supreme being; it may simply point to a lack of understanding of the nature of intelligence. Who knows, intelligence may be a vestige of “god”, but only through the continual search for truth will we approach illumination on that matter.

Inventors apply intelligence to solving problems, but as I look around at “creation” I find it difficult to accept on the face of it the notion there is an intelligent designer at work in the formation of humans.  As an inventor I must point out that, as it concerns the development of human beings, this alleged intelligent designer was less than generous in the attributes assigned to the “pinnacle of all creation.” 

If I were an almighty inventor and had the benefit of all of my previous works, there are a few innovations that I’d be remiss not to include in my greatest creation.  For one, there is the regeneration of lost or damaged limbs.  If I endowed a lowly newt and other creatures with this potential, it would be a shame not to provide the same advantage to my most ambitious creation.  Regeneration of limbs in newts occurs first by de-differentiation of adult cells into cells similar to embryonic cells and then development of these cells into new tissue.  It’s interesting to me, that the “intelligent creator” left this task to its “creation,” through stem cell research, to use its intelligence to do what the creator apparently ignored. 

Then there is the question of flight.  Here is another attribute that was left up to the “creation” to realize, building on trial and error to achieve flight, applying intelligence over the ages to discover the means.  I imagine that more than a few early humans lost their lives in an attempt to fly.  First by simply jumping off ledges and flapping their arms, or even wearing feathers in imitation of birds; over time observations and refinements provided insights into the mechanism of flight until a solution was finally achieved. So it turns out, even human flight was evolutionary.

With the inevitability of death, mortality is especially hard to face when we understand there is a possibility of immortality.  Therefore, I would also endow my ultimate creation with the potential for immortality as with the Hydra, a genus of simple fresh-water animals whose cells continually divide allowing defects and toxins to be "diluted-away"; it is thought that hydras do not undergo aging.  Then there is Turritopsis nutricula a species of jellyfish that uses Tran differentiation to become younger after sexual reproduction; this cycle can repeat indefinitely, rendering it potentially immortal.  I can’t think of a better justification for having sex.

Of course, if we were made in the creator’s image, one would expect that we would be endowed with the attribute of immortality.  Some would argue the “creator” felt the ability to be immortal would make humans to much like gods, or that immortality should be reserved for those obedient servants for the “afterlife” as a gift for their faithfulness, but these apologies do not reflect well on a caring and loving god. 

Looking beyond the innovations the creator neglected to include in the pinnacle of creation, there are also the seemingly unforeseen consequences of some of the final design choices left to chance.  For instance, a fertilized egg in a woman can implant itself in many different places in the reproductive system before it reaches the uterus causing an ectopic pregnancy.  Prior to modern surgery, ectopic pregnancy caused the deaths of both mother and baby.  Even today, in almost all cases, the pregnancy must be aborted to save the life of the mother.  Since a cavity exists between the ovary and the fallopian tube one could argue this is a sign of a flawed design in the reproductive system. 

Also, the birth canal in females passes through the pelvis, if the baby’s head is significantly larger than the pelvic opening the baby cannot be born naturally.  Before the development of the C-section, this could lead to the death of the mother, the baby or both; an omnificent god would surely have caught these flaws and corrected them immediately.

Further, there is a glaring defect in the human male whose testes develop early within the abdomen; later during development they migrate through the abdominal wall into the scrotum. This causes weak points in the abdominal wall where hernias can form; prior to current surgical techniques complications from hernias usually resulted in death.  

For me, these apparent blunders suggest an evolutionary process at work, not an omniscient intelligent designer creating the world whole cloth.  I would suggest its not intelligent design; it’s intelligence in the design.  I think someday we may discover that what we call intelligence may be an agent in evolution.  This treatise is not a repudiation of the existence of god per se; it only calls into question the method of “creation.”  

Democratizing Capital

“Why are the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer?” This is a perennial and persistent question on economics. The answer, simply put, is because ownership of productive capital is skewed towards the very wealthy. The top 1% of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business assets, while the richest 10 percent of families own about 85 percent of all outstanding stocks, about 85 percent of all financial securities and 90 percent of all business assets. The multinational corporations controlled by this concentration of capital control the world’s Capitals. By the use of heavy lobbying, along with other efforts like political contributions, government policies are implemented that favor the corporations over the citizens. By this means, a cabal of private interest represented largely by the top 1% maintains dominance and influence over the economies of the earth, often having more power than governments.

Capitalism is contrived to reward productive capital, while it usurps the fruits of human capital with economic force; the resultant imbalance and concentration of capital is driving a modern feudalism. The vast majority of the population is enslaved by capital’s demands; we are indentured servants by design and choice (though it’s more of a Hobson’s choice). For the most part we in the 99% are vested in capitalism through debt, as a result we posses very little power in economic decision making. Servicing our personal debt erodes our economic capital; consequently our options and potential for change are heavily restricted.

Given the facts concerning the concentration of capital, it is clear the recent bailout of Wall Street was about bailing out the wealthy; this at the expense of the working poor and middleclass who make up the vast majority of the 99%. The good news is the recent failure of the capital market has handed us a great opportunity to re-imagine and re-invent our economic system in a way that will serve all society and not just transfer money to the wealthy 1%. It is not society’s duty to serve the economy of the wealthy; the economy should be structured to serve society.

With the near collapse of the capital market we have the lucky opportunity to reinvent an economic system that is based on innovation and collaboration that can provide for both our physical and metaphysical needs, while leading toward individual fulfillment.  We must pursue a grassroots effort to divert economic resources away from those few who are engaged in crony capitalism perpetuating a paradigm that is unsustainable and to reroute those resources towards a free-enterprise system that empowers all individuals and families through direct and effective ownership of the means of production.  

There is a great amount of underutilized human capital available that can be engaged productively.  We possess in abundance all of the essential elements of economic growth, time, energy, needs and skills which makes up our human capital.  Our human capital also comprises our healthy physical capacity to produce for the future, in concert with our acquired knowledge, skills and experience.  The challenge ahead is to take our human capital and put it to work in our communities to operate as a wealth generator to satisfy our personal and societal needs, while at the same time accumulating productive capital towards a sustainable economy.  

Let’s be real, many of the jobs lost in the present depression will never come back, any recovery must come from the growth of new enterprises.  Human capital provides the engine that propels the economy; this engine can be retooled to run efficiently on alternative economic energy in the same way our cars must be retooled to run on alternative energy.  It is in our self interest to band together to cooperate, collaborate and engage in what might be considered altruistic activities to attain economic rewards. 

Our communities need to be creative in finding alternative solutions for nurturing healthier homegrown local economies, providing for bottom up growth.  There are numerous potential strategies, some of them well proven, that can be applied to produce local wealth such as cooperatives, employee owned companies, companies offering ESOPs (Employee Stock Ownership Plans), complementary currencies, community land trusts, local barter-clubs, time banking, people-to-people lending and micro-lending to name just a few. 

The use of local complementary currencies enables communities to more fully employ its available productive resources; particularly the residual unemployed labor from the present depression.  Through associations of small local banks and/or credit unions, along with businesses, we can provide a capital support network to facilitate emerging economic activities.  Further, a local complementary currency will circulate more consistently within the community than the national currency, having a greater multiplier effect on the local economy.  Local currency usage encourages the trade of available goods and services that are produced locally.

I call upon the nouveau riche to take an initiative in this endeavor, by taking a leadership role in a grass roots effort to bestow the benefits of “capitalism” to the population in general by which society can evolve into a more vibrant and collaborative body, making productive capital broadly owned so as to have the effect of vesting ownership and profit potential in society at large.  We can begin by envisioning local solutions to local problems; solutions managed by local communities empowering the thousand points of light and rewarding individual initiatives to solve problems and produce results.

There is an enormous array of experimental and proven strategies for community development that can be employed to reinvent and reinvigorate the local economy, as well as to help build productive capital for expanding local opportunities.  The list below delineates some of the strategies and democratic capital structures being offered in the virtual marketplace, this list provides an idea of the breath of the movement towards strengthening our local economies at the grass roots level.  Take some time to explore these economic options by researching them on the internet, become familiar with what’s out there and share it with those close to you. 

As you feel comfortable with your understanding of the value of one or more of these initiatives for your life and community, begin implementing them with your neighbors.  I suggest each one of us identify the circle or circles of affinity that inform and nurture our lives and look to these alliances as a nexus for implementing change towards democratizing capitalism. 

Many will find their church offers a communion of like minded cohorts that will provide the support of service for reconstructing the community at large.   Other’s may turn to the virtual community of social networking as an extension of their local community, to strategize and share what works and does not work as an immediate and vital link to an expanding consciousness leading to an economic self-sufficiency revolution.  

Ø Worker Co-Operatives
Ø Consumer/Retail Co-Operatives
Ø Housing Co-Operatives
Ø Agricultural Co-Operatives
Ø Health Care Co-Operatives
Ø Employee-Owned Business
Ø Development Trusts
Ø Community Foundations
Ø Social Firms
Ø Intermediate Labor Market Projects
Ø Credit Unions
Ø Community Loan Funds
Ø Friendly Societies
Ø Mutual Insurers
Ø Building Societies
Ø Charitable Trading Arms
Ø Let Schemes - Local Exchange Trading Systems
Ø Community Currency
Ø Community Sponsored Agricultural
Ø Consumer Stock Ownership Plans (CSOP); stock ownership plans for utility users and regular customers of enterprises.
Ø Community Investment Corporation (CIC) sharing profits from local land planning and development including structural developments such as highways, railways, bridges, utility companies, harbors, tunnels, etc
Ø Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP), which has a proven track record in the United States with 1,500 corporations 100% employee-owned.
Ø The Homestead Act

You can find links to websites devoted to these community actions at my website www.vera-city.net, including a proposal for a hybrid global digital complementary currency called the Vera.

Copyright © 2009 - 2012